|
|
#1
11-08-2004, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
To start, i am agnostic (atheist by consequence), but what was wondering what sort of objections the forum had to Aquina's arguement from contigency. The argument goes as follows,
In the Universe, things are capable of existing and not exisiting. The proof is that we find some things that are brought into existence and then destroyed, and consequently are capable of being or not being. It is impossilbe for all things which exist to be of this kind, because anything which is capable of not existing, at some time or other does not exist. If therefore all things are capable of not existing, there was time when nothing existed in the Universe. But if this is true there would also be nothing in existnce now; because anything that does not exist cannot begin to exist except by the agency of somehting which has existence. All things, therefore, are not contingent, and ther must be something which is necessary in the Universe. 
|
|
#3
11-08-2004, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
Good point. I was more so looking for something that would find fault in Aquina's attempted proof for something to independetly exist at all, whatever the characteristics. He goes on to say,
But everything which is necessary either has or has not the cause of its necessity from an outside source. Now it is not possible to proceed to infity in necessary things which have a cause of their necessity, as has been proven in the case of efficient causes. Therfore it is necessary to suppose the existence of something which is necessary in itself, not having the cause of its necessity from any outside source, but which is the cause of necessity in others. And this "something" we call God.
|
|
#4
11-08-2004, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
[ QUOTE ]
because anything that does not exist cannot begin to exist except by the agency of somehting which has existence. [/ QUOTE ] According to modern physics, this is not true; particles can come into existence out of nothing and without any cause.
|
|
#5
11-08-2004, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
[ QUOTE ]
According to modern physics, this is not true; particles can come into existence out of nothing and without any cause. [/ QUOTE ] Well, make them cut it out. Right away.
|
|
#6
11-08-2004, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
"particles can come into existence out of nothing and without any cause."
...without any known cause. Good point though, I really enjoyed learning the mainstream of physics through Stephen's Hawkins book, a Brief History of Time. I'm sure he would have quite a few critiques to this arguement as well.
|
|
#7
11-08-2004, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
...without any known cause.
[/ QUOTE ] You are wrong. Our science tells us that not only do we not know the cause, there is no cause. Feel free to disagree with that if you wish, but you will be disagreeing with 80 years of rigorous study and experimentation by physicists who probably know a lot more about the subject than you.
|
|
#8
11-08-2004, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
I'm quite sure i understand and agree with what you are saying, but your are speaking in terms of consequentialism, am i correct? In pure theory one can discuss the period of nothing. Anyways, science is always evolving and most of physics rides on the assumptions of quantum mechanics and general relativity, which have yet to be unified. The knowledge you know now is dependent on the knowledge there is to learn, and that dependence always allows the possibilty of your current knowledge to be wrong. Basically i wouldn't go as far to say that physics theories are set in stone. They might, on the other hand, be the best evidence for what we can interpret.
|
|
#9
11-08-2004, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Proof of God:: The Argument from Contingency
I agree that what we know now could turn out to be wrong, but that does not mean that we can just disregard that knowledge. Nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. The best we can do is rigorously test certain hypothesis and accept them as "true" after some point, even though we know that they can still turn out to be wrong. The hypothesis that phenomena can have no cause has been proven to as a high degree of certainty as most other principles that scientists accept as "true."
|
|
#10
11-08-2004, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello! Hmm--Given the facts ...
of the human brain with it's thoughts and the human body housing the intricate workings of several organisms , and the billions of nerve cells,and the real human emotional experiences--
Can one REALLY believe that these facts are ALL a result of pure chance?? That's like saying that SittingBull is a LOSING poker player! Yea,right! Happy pokering, May God Almighty bless U-- [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
